Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 178661 comments on the www.scientificblogging.com story from Feb 24, 2008, titled Should evolution be taught in high school?. In it, www.scientificblogging.com reports that:

Microbiologist Carl Woese is well known as an iconoclast. At 79 years of age, Woese is still shaking things up. Most recently, he stated in an interview with Wired that...

"My feeling is that evolution shouldn't be taught at the lower grades. You don't teach quantum mechanics in the grade schools. One has to be quite educated to work with these concepts; what they pass on as evolution in high schools is nothing but repetitious tripe that teachers don't understand."

Join the discussion below, or Read more at www.scientificblogging.com.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#142605 Jul 17, 2013
Believer wrote:
<quoted text>
It is not your morality that concerns me. And I guess you did not understand that God dealt with sinful people and immorality differently before He came to die! We now live under the blood sacrifice and grace of Christ.
Why the change of heart? Did god decide that his old ways of dealing with things were not the best? Please explain why an all-knowing god changed his mind.
Believer wrote:
Even the Old Testament law forbade murder. You must try to understand that the Old Testament was written by people in a particular time and culture to people of many different lifestyles at that time.
I thought it was written/inspired by god.{shrug}
Believer wrote:
It is impossible to stamp out Truth. Truth prevails and overcomes adversity.
Science continues to make great discoveries and new technology every day. But, science is not Truth!
Uh-huh. Your truth.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#142606 Jul 17, 2013
Believer wrote:
<quoted text>
As a believer I don't live by defining terms that would satisfy the curiosity of one who admits to being an ignorant, naive, moron. Although it was refreshing to see that you admit you can see your own faults as well as everyone else's!
So, you don't admit that you're ignorant of anything, nor that you're na´ve about anything, nor that you're ever a moron about anything. Look at how perfect you are. That's the Christian humility we've come to expect.
Believer wrote:
You can't understand terms that don't make sense to you.
I simply don't know what YOU mean by THOSE words. They are ambiguous words that various people use to mean various things. If you don't define such terms, you're relying on us to assume what you mean. If we assume one meaning and refute that meaning, you'll simply say that's not what you mean, and we're putting words in your mouth. Well, to avoid that, YOU need to define those words. Let's all get on the same page. Are you afraid of us understanding what you believe?
Believer wrote:
Trying to make you understand something you can't grasp wit you mind of flesh and perceived intellect is like talking to a tree.
So, you refuse to define your terms, and by doing so, you ensure that I can't understand, and then you condemn me for not understanding you. That seems totally fair. We define terms ALL THE TIME. Someone asks you to define a couple words, and you get your knickers in a twist. You don't want to communicate effectively. You just want to practice preaching and avoid subjecting your beliefs to scrutiny. Keep proving me right.
Believer wrote:
If my not defining my terms to your satisfaction proves you are right about anything tells me you aren't even close to being right about much of anything. And that is about as far away from scientifically proving anything as you could get.
Circular reasoning?
Weak.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#142607 Jul 17, 2013
Believer wrote:
<quoted text>
Two perpendicular lines will never meet!
Define "spirit."
Define "spiritual."
Define "God."
Define "supernatural."

Without defining your terms, we can only address our assumptions of what you mean by these ambiguous terms. Do you want to be accurately understood, or do you want us to have to assume what you mean and be wrong about your beliefs? Does it matter to you whether we understand you properly, or do you just want this to be you preaching into the void? You can do the latter anywhere, and you don't need us to do it. If you DO care if we understand you properly, define your terms.

Or, keep proving that you don't want to subject your beliefs to scrutiny and continue avoiding my simple and reasonable requests.
Believer

Manchester, TN

#142609 Jul 17, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>We have answers based on facts or try to as much as possible. The facts are the same regardless of who you are, where you are from, how you grew up, what your religion, politics, or orgin is. Science is looking for answers in the real world and has a limited interest in religion at best. It is religion that crosses over into the realm of science most often to assert its preceived authority and not the other way around.
Isn't your goal to witness to us here on this thread. From your posts, I conclude that you consider anyone that supports science and accepts the theory of evolution to be an atheist. That is your faith. It is not the reality.
Growing up in a predominantly Protestant community, with socially conservative leanings, I never saw then nor have I since leaving there seen any Christian persecuted for their beliefs. Disagreed with sure, but not persecuted. That is a fiction created by the fundamentalists because fundamentalists like martyrs and popularizing that perception is good for the cause. It is a twisting of the fundamentalists efforts to force religion past the Constitution and into public institutions.
I wouldn't dismiss the appearance of what seem to be sarcastic or critical responses, but I agree there are certain limits to this form of communication. Some very creative means have been developed and employed to bridge some of the gaps.:)
No! I know you can believe in a god without it being the specific God of the Bible. There is a big difference. There is a difference in the Hindu God, the Islam God, the Gods of mythology and on and on.
Since you look to science for all of your answers it appears with no other definition of the God you believe in that Science may be your God. Science can be a God if you make it the source of all that you know and look to for answers. And I don't mean that in a derogatory or disrespectful way at all.
I choose what makes sense to me. You choose what makes sense to you. Personal responsibility.

Now you are probably thinking that I am not being responsible because I am not using my brain to decide what makes sense to my brain. Right?

I am not using my brain.(Be careful, I just left you a whopper of an opportunity to imply that makes me stupid. If you do that it makes you rude and unkind. Frankly, I'd rather be considered stupid.)

For some reason some of us can see the Easter Bunny leaving gifts on Easter morning as a made up fantasy, but see the account of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden as possible. Obviously, because we believe God to be GOD.

GOD did not make rabbits to lay eggs. That is a scientific fact. If you told me you had a rabbit that could lay an egg, I would not believe you.

If Moses (or whoever) wrote a story depicting God creating Adam that made its way into the Bible and has stood the test of ridicule yet believed by millions of rational, intelligent human beings over thousands of years, I think there must be something more going on here than can be discounted so easily because it doesn't make sense in our natural mind.

So, I realize what the Bible also teaches about man being body, mind, and spirit. And, I decide to believe God gave me a spirit and I begin to think that what might not be understood by my mind, might actually be possible with GOD.
Believer

Manchester, TN

#142610 Jul 17, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
Define "spirit."
Define "spiritual."
Define "God."
Define "supernatural."
Without defining your terms, we can only address our assumptions of what you mean by these ambiguous terms. Do you want to be accurately understood, or do you want us to have to assume what you mean and be wrong about your beliefs? Does it matter to you whether we understand you properly, or do you just want this to be you preaching into the void? You can do the latter anywhere, and you don't need us to do it. If you DO care if we understand you properly, define your terms.
Or, keep proving that you don't want to subject your beliefs to scrutiny and continue avoiding my simple and reasonable requests.
My personal definitions that are truth to me personally because of my personal worldview.(I assume you would not want me to look up someone else's definition in the dictionary or google.)

Spirit: The Bible speaks of God as one God having three separate identities:Father, son, and Holy Spirit.
Of all his living creation, man is the only "animal" with a body, an ability to think and reason in the brain/ mind, and a Spirit. The Bible says God's Spirit bears witness with our spirit as to the things of God.

“Rising”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Milky Way

#142611 Jul 17, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
You sure? Isnt hubbles constant derived from observations of the degree of red shift depending on an object's distance from our galaxy? Thst would mske it derived rather than a third line of evidence
Yes it is derived and a third. Redshift alone denotes differences in velocity ,that are directional. The Hubble constant is using this knowledge to assimilate a determination
that the universe is moving apart. If you doubt this google them separately, as they are apart , and redshift shows motion away,
The Hubble constant shows by redshift most of the universe
is in motion away from itself and gives a figure as to what it is. AKA: the Hubble constant . Redshift only show relative motion.
While the Hubble constant explains that the motion of matter in the universe is mostly expanding away from itself.

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Level 5

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

#142612 Jul 17, 2013
Believer wrote:
<quoted text>
My personal definitions that are truth to me personally because of my personal worldview.(I assume you would not want me to look up someone else's definition in the dictionary or google.)
Spirit: The Bible speaks of God as one God having three separate identities:Father, son, and Holy Spirit.
Of all his living creation, man is the only "animal" with a body, an ability to think and reason in the brain/ mind, and a Spirit. The Bible says God's Spirit bears witness with our spirit as to the things of God.
If you "value" this ability to think and reason, you should use it more. There is no evidence anything spiritual exists.
Believer

Manchester, TN

#142613 Jul 17, 2013
Continued ( knowing LG will attempt to demonstrate using scientific proof (cough cough) how wise and intelligent he is by ridiculing the concept of a Holy God and those who choose to believe In Him.)

Spiritual: pertaining to the things of the spirit
With our intellect only, we cannot understand supernatural truth. Angels are supernatural, demons are supernatural, some UFO phenomenon is supernatural.
Miracles outside the realm of science are supernatural. Knowledge also comes from the mind of God. Therefore man and animals can do some miraculous things.

Supernatural: Anything that cannot be seen or explained with the natural mind and intellectual knowledge of man in the natural realm.(See above for things that are supernatural and include the God of the Bible in that list.)
(LG, IF you can't figure out what I mean by the natural realm, don't expect me to explain it to you. It should be obvious to a "third grader" by now.

God: going to need morE space and time for God! Be back after dinner (God willing). ;o)
Believer

Manchester, TN

#142614 Jul 17, 2013
Ooogah Boogah wrote:
<quoted text>
If you "value" this ability to think and reason, you should use it more. There is no evidence anything spiritual exists.
That's only because you haven't learned to use all the gifts I believe God has given to all of us.
God's Holy Spirit bears witness with our Spirit as to spiritual truth.
Believer

Manchester, TN

#142615 Jul 17, 2013
Ooogah Boogah wrote:
<quoted text>
If you "value" this ability to think and reason, you should use it more. There is no evidence anything spiritual exists.
There is no scientific proof that anything spiritual exists. Spiritual Truth is not dependent on Scientific Proof.
Rinnua

Redmond, WA

#142616 Jul 17, 2013
Wait wait wait... If God is all knowing, how did he not know Eve ate the apple?
Rinnua

Redmond, WA

#142617 Jul 17, 2013
Or stop 9/11? Or Newtown? He knew those would happen then, and did nothing? I thought he was our savior?

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Level 5

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

#142618 Jul 17, 2013
Believer wrote:
<quoted text>
There is no scientific proof that anything spiritual exists. Spiritual Truth is not dependent on Scientific Proof.
Fairy truth is also not dependent on Scientific Proof either ... something to think about, huh?

Perhaps you and tinkerbell should sit down and have a conversation about it .... if she exists that is ....

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Level 5

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

#142619 Jul 17, 2013
Believer wrote:
<quoted text>
That's only because you haven't learned to use all the gifts I believe God has given to all of us.
God's Holy Spirit bears witness with our Spirit as to spiritual truth.
This idea that something exists just because someone or many people WANT it to be and BELIEVE it to be is so readily disproven once you've experienced Scientific verifiable reality that you so DESPERATELY do not want to believe is true. But there it is, starkly undeniable. Therefore, there is no truth in what you WANT to believe.

It really is that simple.
Mugwump

London, UK

#142620 Jul 17, 2013
Believer wrote:
<quoted text>
There is no scientific proof that anything spiritual exists. Spiritual Truth is not dependent on Scientific Proof.
And this is kind of the point - science deals with what we can enumerate and use directly.

And religion addresses a different (but. not necessarily less importent) societal need.

The conflict comes from when an INTERPRETATION of religion (e.g 6k old earth) disagrees with rational evidence

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#142621 Jul 17, 2013
Believer wrote:
<quoted text>
There is no scientific proof that anything spiritual exists. Spiritual Truth is not dependent on Scientific Proof.
And you continue to illustrate your ignorance.

Science does not deal with "proof". Science deals with evidence.

As the saying goes "proof" is for mathematics and alcohol.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#142622 Jul 17, 2013
Believer wrote:
<quoted text>
In God We Trust must have meant something very significant to the founders of our Country.

The founders of our country never heard of the phrase. The phrase seems to have originated in 1812 in the 4th stanza of a poem by an amateur poet named Francis Scott Key titled "Defence of Fort McHenry". It was not officially the motto of the us till 1956 (McCarthy era). It was the same movement that added the words "under god" to the Pledge of Allegiance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_God_we_trust
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Star-Spangle...

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#142624 Jul 17, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>I admit it isn't even a fair trade if you just consider Dr. Who, Monty Python, The Who and Burger King (that one may only count as ownership).

Hey, we American's have contributed some great things to mother England. For example,......... um..........Rush is from Canada].......[sex is from Africa]......... STAR TREK! Yeah! We came up with Star Trek.

And I am sure there is more! I can't THINK of any more at the moment, but it's out there! You bet it is!

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#142625 Jul 17, 2013
Believer wrote:
<quoted text>
How about explaining what led up to the Big Bang. And, if you never wondered WHY the Big Bang happened, what difference does it make how it happened?

Sorry that science is so disappointing. In the last 100 years science has only uncovered and explained the last 13+ billion years. Science is such a failure.

Believer wrote:
<quoted text>
At least we believe God has existed "from everlasting to everlasting. And that God had an intelligent plan and purpose in creation."

Belief is not science. What is believe is not necessarily fact.
Believer wrote:
<quoted text>
It takes as much faith to believe in a Big Bang as it does to believe in the Garden of Eden.

The 'Big Bang' is a theory that was developed out of the observable evidence and has been used to make thousands of predictions. That is how science works and is validated. Scientific theories neither need nor require faith. They are either supported or not by the evidence.

There is no evidence for a Garden of Eden and a lot of evidence to suggest that it is the result of metaphorical writing. The story contains many spiritual ideas and moral teachings that disappear with a literal reading.
Believer wrote:
<quoted text> Big Bang? Poof! Abrakadabra ! Bippity Boppity Boo!

You're silly.
Believer wrote:
<quoted text> The universe has the capacity for "life-ing." And you think believers in God are ignorant and living in la la land?

That is based on the evidence:

1. The universe appears to exist.
2. The universe now appears to contain life.
3. At one time the universe did not contain life.

Hence the universe is "life-ing"*

Again, I happen to believe in Elohim (Yahweh), but my god has no issues with science nor does he require that I have any.

*term coined by Alan Watts

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#142626 Jul 17, 2013
Believer wrote:
<quoted text>
Why would we use scientific arguments as evidence for a supernatural God?

We wouldn't. But we should use science to debate science. That is to say we should use empirical/scientific evidence to support or refute scientific theories.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 5 min Blitzking 168,961
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 3 hr ChromiuMan 141,854
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 8 hr Brian_G 19,796
News Aliens and evolution (Jun '12) 13 hr thetruth 6,221
has science finally debunked the 'god' myth? Fri Paul Porter1 13
How can we prove God exists, or does not? Jul 2 Paul Porter1 197
How would creationists explain... (Nov '14) Jul 2 Paul Porter1 561
More from around the web